DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11 and 16 recite a computing device implementing receiving an image to be associated with a first profile user, when the image does not contain any human faces storing that image as part of the first user profile, determining a keyword based on the objects on the image, query based on the keyword a database for a second image associated with a second profile or second profile based on the second image and display the second image of the computing device.
The claims determining that the first image does not contain any human faces, determining based on objects keywords fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III., as discussed above. The additional elements in the claims include a computing device, storing, querying and displaying are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the abstract idea. (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the abstract idea.
Claims 3, 13 and 18 are dependent on claims 1, 11 and 16 and includes all the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 16. Therefore, claims 3, 13 and 18 recites the same abstract idea of claims 3, 13 and 18. The claim recites the additional limitation of “second image corresponds to a subset of one or more second keywords associated with the second user profile, and wherein none of the subset of the one or more second keywords are the same as the one or more first keywords”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional elements recited at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 14 and 19 is dependent on claims 1, 11 and 16 and includes all the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 16. Therefore, claims 4, 14 and 19 recites the same abstract idea of claims 1, 11 and 16. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the second image corresponds to a subset of one or more second keywords associated with the second user profile, and wherein the one or more first keywords and the subset of the one or more second keywords both comprise a shared keyword”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional elements recited at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the storing the first image is further based on determining that the first image does not contain any words”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional elements recited at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 15 and 20 is dependent on claims 1, 11 and 16 and includes all the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 16. Therefore, claims 6, 15 and 20 recites the same abstract idea of claims 1, 11 and 16. The claim recites the additional limitation of “receiving a third image to be associated with the first user profile corresponding to the first user; and based on comparing the one or more first keywords and one or more third keywords of the third image: causing output, in the user interface, of a notification that the third image will not be added to the first user profile ”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional elements recited at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “preventing the first user from uploading a third image based on determining that the third image contains at least one human face”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional elements recited at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “generating, based on one or more second keywords associated with the second user profile, a discussion prompt for the first user and the second user; and causing display, in the user interface, of the discussion prompt”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional elements recited at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “displaying the second image associated with the second user profile comprises: displaying, at different times, different images of the second user profile”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional elements recited at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “storing the first image is further based on: sending the first image to a reverse image search engine; and receiving, from the reverse image search engine, an indication that the first image has not been uploaded on a website”, which is merely elaborating on the abstract idea, by further specifying an additional elements recited at a high-level of generality, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11, 13-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wes (Building a blind dating app from scratch, April 13, 2022) in view of Norelius et al. (US 2021/0241397 A1).
With regards to Claim 1, Wes shows a method to implement a dating application (page 1 blind dating application) comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a first image to be associated with a first user profile corresponding to a first user (page 2 upload any (appropriate) photos that showcase your personality, no photos of yourself allowed); and
based on determining that the first image does not contain any human faces storing the first image as part of the first user profile (page 2 upload any (appropriate) photos that showcase your personality, no photos of yourself allowed, page 4 image detection software that’s able to identify and prohibit a photo of a real person); [ ].
Wes does not specifically show determining, by the computing device and based on one or more objects in the first image, one or more first keywords; storing, by the computing device, as part of the first user profile, and as associated with the first image, the one or more first keywords; querying, by the computing device and based on the one or more first keywords, a database to identify one or more of: a second image, wherein the second image is associated with a second user profile; or the second user profile, wherein the second image is associated with the second user profile; and displaying, by the computing device and in a user interface, the second image.
Norelius’397 shows determining, by the computing device and based on one or more objects in the first image, one or more first keywords (paragraphs [0056]-[0058] and figure 3 block 304 a user matching service 150 receives indication preference from the first user for each of the presented training photographs and in block 306 determines tags or attributes/keywords associated with the first user);
storing, by the computing device, as part of the first user profile, and as associated with the first image, the one or more first keywords (paragraph [0044] “linking a user account to a target object” or “creating a link between a user account to a target object”, paragraph [0058] use the extracted information to build a preference profile for the first user );
querying, by the computing device and based on the one or more first keywords, a database to identify one or more of (paragraph [0044] associating the user account with the target object in a database such that the system can query the database to retrieve all user accounts associated with a given target object and/or query the database to retrieve all target objects associated with a given user account, also in paragraph [0106] the user matching service 150 associates the first user account with the target object in a database such that the user matching system 101 can query the database to retrieve all user accounts associated with a given target object and/or query the database to retrieve all target objects associated with a given user account. In some cases, other techniques for associating the user account and the target object may be used (e.g., using tags, identifiers, and the like)):
a second image, wherein the second image is associated with a second user profile (figure 3 blocks 308 and 310, a second user associated with photographs with tags or attributes wherein in block 312 a match is determined between the first user and the second user or a match between the first user and the photographs of the second user); or
the second user profile, wherein the second image is associated with the second user profile (figure 3 blocks 308 and 310, a second user associated with photographs with tags or attributes wherein in block 312 a match is determined between the first user and the second user or a match between the first user and the photographs of the second user); and
displaying, by the computing device and in a user interface, the second image (paragraph [0085] the user matching service 150 transmits the search result to the mobile device for display on the mobile device, figure 22 showing images matches with % of match).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Wes to include determining, by the computing device and based on one or more objects in the first image, one or more first keywords; storing, by the computing device, as part of the first user profile, and as associated with the first image, the one or more first keywords; querying, by the computing device and based on the one or more first keywords, a database to identify one or more of: a second image, wherein the second image is associated with a second user profile; or the second user profile, wherein the second image is associated with the second user profile; and displaying, by the computing device and in a user interface, the second image method taught by Norelius’397. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to improve user experience (paragraph [0071]).
With regards to Claim 3, the combination of Wes and Norelius’397 shows the method of claim 1, wherein the second image corresponds to a subset of one or more second keywords associated with the second user profile, and wherein none of the subset of the one or more second keywords are the same as the one or more first keywords (in Norelius’397: match percentages and the ranked list may be a subset of all users of the user matching system 101 selected based on the characteristics of the target object and/or user).
With regards to Claim 4, the combination of Wes and Norelius’397 shows the method of claim 1, wherein the second image corresponds to a subset of one or more second keywords associated with the second user profile, and wherein the one or more first keywords and the subset of the one or more second keywords both comprise a shared keyword (in Norelius’397: match percentages and the ranked list may be a subset of all users of the user matching system 101 selected based on the characteristics of the target object and/or user).
With regards to Claim 5, the combination of Wes and Norelius’397 shows the method of claim 1, wherein the storing the first image is further based on determining that the first image does not contain any words (in Norelius’397: paragraph [0017] user chooses photographs with desired attributes, figures 10-13, no words on the images).
With regards to Claim 7, the combination of Wes and Norelius’397 shows the method of claim 1, further comprising: preventing the first user from uploading a third image based on determining that the third image contains at least one human face (In Wes: page 2 upload any (appropriate) photos that showcase your personality, no photos of yourself allowed, page 4 image detection software that’s able to identify and prohibit a photo of a real person).
With regards to Claim 8, the combination of Wes and Norelius’397 shows the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, based on one or more second keywords associated with the second user profile, a discussion prompt for the first user and the second user; and causing display, in the user interface, of the discussion prompt (in Norelius’397: paragraph [0137] displaying an electronic message between first and second user).
With regards to Claim 9, the combination of Wes and Norelius’397 shows the method of claim 1, wherein displaying the second image associated with the second user profile comprises: displaying, at different times, different images of the second user profile (in Norelius’397: figures 10 to 13).
With respect to Claims 15 and 20, rejection analogous to those presented for claim 6, are applicable.
With respect to Claims 11 and 16, rejection analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
With respect to Claims 13 and 18, rejection analogous to those presented for claim 3, are applicable.
With respect to Claims 14 and 19, rejection analogous to those presented for claim 4, are applicable.
Claims 6, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wes (Building a blind dating app from scratch, April 13, 2022) in view of Norelius et al. (US 2021/0241397 A1) further in view of Li et al. (US 2015/0032535 A1).
With regards to Claim 6, the combination of Wes and Norelius’397 does not specifically shows the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a third image to be associated with the first user profile corresponding to the first user; and based on comparing the one or more first keywords and one or more third keywords of the third image: causing output, in the user interface, of a notification that the third image will not be added to the first user profile.
Li’535 shows the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a third image to be associated with the first user profile corresponding to the first user; and based on comparing the one or more first keywords and one or more third keywords of the third image: causing output, in the user interface, of a notification that the third image will not be added to the first user profile (Paragraph [0072] if a collection of images comprises images related to baseball, cooking and nature, and there is a single image (or a number of images below a threshold) related to football, then, the clustering will involve only baseball, cooking and nature and figure 4).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Wes and Norelius’397 to include based on comparing the one or more first keywords and one or more third keywords of the third image: causing output, in the user interface, of a notification that the third image will not be added to the first user profile method taught by Li’535. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve classification of content and developing relationships between information and reduce execution time (paragraph [0004]).
With respect to Claims 15 and 20, rejection analogous to those presented for claim 6, are applicable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wes (Building a blind dating app from scratch, April 13, 2022) in view of Norelius et al. (US 2021/0241397 A1) further in view of Thomas et al. (US 2022/0335249 A1).
With regards to Claim 10, the combination of Wes and Norelius’397 does not specifically shows the method of claim 1, wherein the storing the first image is further based on: sending the first image to a reverse image search engine; and receiving, from the reverse image search engine, an indication that the first image has not been uploaded on a website.
Thomas’249 shows sending the first image to a reverse image search engine; and receiving, from the reverse image search engine, an indication that the first image has not been uploaded on a website (paragraph [0063] when an object is added to a profile, this enables reverse lookup).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Wes and Norelius’397 to include sending the first image to a reverse image search engine; and receiving, from the reverse image search engine, an indication that the first image has not been uploaded on a website method taught by Thomas’249. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to improve performance (paragraph [0063]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Terrazas et al. (US 2025/0139156 A1): figures 1-2.
Rathod (US 2023/0252540 A1): paragraph [0093] The storage 236 stores the media items generated or shared or received by user and also store the corresponding geolocation information, auto identified system data including date & time, auto recognized objects in photo or image(s) of video associated keywords, metadata, and user provided information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRIANA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3246. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IRIANA CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681